Rajasthan High Court
Ramgopal Son Of Ramchandra vs Ram Lal Son Of Lalaram on 16 August, 2022
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5122/2020
Ramgopal Son Of Ramchandra, Aged About 41 Years, Resident
Of Village Jethana, Tehsil Pisangan Police Thana Mangaliyawas,
District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Ram Lal Son Of Lalaram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident
Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas, Tehsil
Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
2. Ramniwas Son Of Ram Lal, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas,
Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
3. Manbhar Wife Of Ramniwas, Aged About 43 Years,
Resident Of Village Jethana, Police Thana Mangaliyawas,
Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Choudhary
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
16/08/2022
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff assailing the
legality and validity of the judgment dated 08.01.2020 passed by
the learned Additional District Judge, Camp Nasirabad, Ajmer in
Civil Appeal No.09/2019, CIS No.82/2019 dismissing the appeal
preferred by him against the order dated 17.07.2019 passed by
the learned Civil Judge, Nasirabad, Ajmer in Civil Miscellaneous
(2 of 3) [CW-5122/2020]
Case No.3/2019 whereby, an application filed by the petitioner
under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC was partly allowed.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner filed a suit for
mandatory and permanent injunction praying therein that the
respondents/defendants may be directed to open the lock put by
them on the subject property and its possession may be restored
to him. The temporary injunction application filed by the petitioner
along with the suit was partly allowed by the learned trial Court
vide its order dated 17.07.2019 whereby, the parties were
directed to maintain status quo qua the subject property. The
findings have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court vide its
judgment dated 08.01.2020.
Assailing the order impugned, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that learned Courts below erred in not
allowing his application in toto. He submitted that at least, he
should have been permitted to take out his documents and other
articles from the subject property. He, therefore, prayed that the
writ petition be allowed, the order dated 08.01.2020 be quashed
and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 39 Rule
1 & 2 be allowed in toto.
Heard. Considered.
The learned trial Court has passed the order dated
17.07.2019 assigning cogent reasons based on material on record
which have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court.
Indisputably, in view of averments made in the plaint and the
application for temporary injunction wherein, the petitioner has
claimed restoration of possession, he was not in possession on the
subject property on the day the suit was filed. It is trite law that
for grant of mandatory injunction by way of an interim relief, the
(3 of 3) [CW-5122/2020]
petitioner is required to establish very strong prima-facie case
which, in the present case, is lacking. In view thereof, in the
considered opinion of this Court, the learned Court did not err in
not allowing the application in toto and directing restoration of
possession by way of mandatory temporary injunction.
Indisputably, the agreement to sell under which the petitioner is
claiming his possession is unregistered which is compulsarily
registerable after the amendment w.e.f. 09.09.1989 brought by
Registration (Rajasthan Amendment) Act, 1989.
Since, the judgment dated 08.01.2020 does not suffer from
any perversity or patent jurisdictional error so as to warrant
interference of this Court in concurrent findings of fact recorded by
the learned Courts and therefore, this writ petition is dismissed
being devoid of merit.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/79
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
